Pages

Translate

Saturday, January 18, 2014

In 1980 the Virginia Department of Health asked toxicologist Brian
Dementi. PhD, to review the available literature relating to the health effects of
fluoride. Dementi concluded: “With regard to fluoridation, this writer is of the opinion
that the evidence of adverse health effects is of such magnitude and human
beings so varied in their individual constitution, state of health at any
moment, eating and drinking habits, etc., that it is inappropriate to say that
fluoridation is a totally healthful and safe practice for all."

Further, Dementi writes, "Widespread exposure to fluoride coupled with
an inadequate data base substantiating it to be safe is a cause of great
concern. The public consumes fluoride from drinking water, tooth paste, mouth
washes, etc. with little or no advice as to how much fluoride is enough or too
much. The evidence as cited herein indicates some adverse health or metabolic
effects right at, or very close to, the 1 ppm level, with no margin of safety
respecting such effects established of the nature generally sought for toxic
substances. It is possible that many individuals out of the large number
consuming fluoridated water are suffering in varying degrees health detriment
attributable to this recognized toxic substance.” http://www.scribd.com/doc/16925697/Dementi-Fluoride-Report

Dementi
writes, “Every effort has been made in
this report to adhere to the ideal of presenting only scientific information and
discussion pertaining to it. “

‘This
report is not complete. The evaluation of the health effects of fluoride must
continue as long as the substance is found in drinking water, tooth paste, mouth
rinses, etc., and concern exists as to its safety.”

‘Furthermore, where the
kidney is concerned persons with impaired kidney function may suffer from acute
fluoride toxicity when consuming water containing as little as 2 ppm
fluoride”

‘The
finding of Hirata in Japan of a decrease in white blood corpuscles and
neutrophils in children of prepuberty age, which was correlateable with the
extent of dental mottling observed where the drinking water containing 1-5 ppm
fluoride, is a serious and important finding.”

‘There is
the added question of Down’s syndrome to be reckoned with. Work has been cited
showing a dose related association between fluoride and the incidence of Down’s
syndrome where fluoride levels in the drinking water ranged from 0.1 to 2.6 ppm.
Though this work has been seriously criticized, the fact remains that no study
satisfactorily refutes the findings. The possibility of a fluoride related
increased incidence of Down’s syndrome remains.”

'Since it appears that a serious question
remains concerning a possible causative relationship between fluoride
ingestion and Down's syndrome, one would think that, in view of the
widespread human exposure, efforts directed toward obtaining definitive
results should have been undertaken or certainly should be in progress."

' Out of 110 million persons consuming water
containing fluoride, there may be many experiencing such symptoms who have no
idea that fluoride in the drinking water may be the
cause.”

"In discussing the effects of fluoride upon the kidney, it seems appropriate at this point to indicate that whereas the kidney fulfills the important task of removing toxic substances, such as fluoride, from the system. There is the consequent danger of fluoride tintoxication in those individuals with impaired renal function who ingest fluoride...It is evident that fluoridated water poses an enhanced threat to those among the populace who have impaired kidney function."

"In referring to average blood fluoride levels little consideration is given to individuals who, for one or more of a variety of reasons, may have fluoride levels well above the average...Arguments such as these suggest that fluoride levels in the blood of a certain fraction of human drinking fluoridated water may be within the range where perturbation of DNA repair is manifest and that at some point in the time such perturbations may have serious consequence.

Dentists,
inside and outside of government and industry, seem to have vast amounts of
money and influence to promote fluoridation. Where does it come from?

The ADA and
the ADA Foundation received over $28 million from pharmaceutical companies,
dental equipment manufacturers and insurance companies, from 2006 – 2009,
according to a January 20, 2010, letter from the ADA’s Chief Financial Officer
to U.S. Senator Charles Grassley.

Grassley
wants more accountability and transparency between the ADA and industry. The ADA didn’t comply with Grassley’s
request to publish its corporate funders on its website. However, Grassley listed
them on his own website http://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/about/upload/2011-05-04-CEG-Letter-to-American-Dental-Association.pdf

Several companies on Grassley’s list
paid a “Seal Program Maintenance Fee,” totaling $574,000 for four years
(2006-2009).

The ADA requires a one-time, non-refundable
submission fee before reviewing over-the-counter products ($14,500 per
product).If given the ADA’s Seal of Acceptance, companies are
required to pay an annual maintenance fee of $3,500 per product, according to
Jan Lord, Manager, Acceptance Program, ADA’s Council on Scientific Affairs.

Approximately, 260 items appear on the ADA’s current Accepted “Shopping List.” A large number are fluoride products.

More Legal Financial Exchanges
between the ADA and Industry

Sometimes
the ADA joins into
“Cause-Related-Marketing” with for-profit companies. For example: the William Wrigley Company agreed to donate a
percentage of its ADA Accepted chewing gum products to the ADA’s Give Kids A Smile program,
according to Guidelines Governing the
American Dental Association’s Corporate Relationships.

Wrigley
paid the ADA $36,000 to review some of Wrigley’s
sugar-free chewing gum studies to get the ADA’s Seal of Acceptance,
according to CNN’s
Dr. Sanjay Gupta.Gupta writes, “The
ADA stands by its seal and told us any company can apply for the seal, as long
as the company pays for it.

Colgate’s
Volpe and a Henry Schein, Inc. representative serve on the Board of Directors
of Forsyth Institute which bills itself
as “the only independent research institute in America specializing in oral health and its impact on
overall wellness.” Forsyth is where Dr. Phyllis Mullenix’s research found that
fluoride can cause brain deficits in rodents. Mullenix was fired for publishing
her results in a peer-reviewed, respected journal, against the orders her
Forsyth boss, explained
in the first chapter of “The
Fluoride Deception.”

The
NYU Donor Honor Roll reveals that Colgate-Palmolive Company and Nobel Biocare
USA, Inc gave
from $1 to 4$ million (2011-2012).

Centers for Disease Control

If a
community elects to stop fluoridation, invariably a dentist and his posse shows
up intimidating them into re-starting fluoridation. As ammunition, they state
that “CDC has recognized water fluoridation as one of the 10 great public
health achievements of the 20th century.”

That
statement may sound impressive. However it was made by dental professionals
within the CDC’s Oral Health Division, who are paid to promote
fluoridation.The CDC also says, “It is
not CDC's task to determine what levels of fluoride in water are safe.”

The CDC’s
Oral Health Division may be a stepping stone into a more lucrative career
promoting fluoridation for outside interests. When forced to defend
fluoridation with words and not hide behind catch-phrases and government
credentials, two former CDC Oral Health Division Directors fell short.

a) Dentist
William Kohn - Now with Delta Dental, a dental “insurance” company that
strongly supports fluoridation financially, Kohn does a poor job of convincing
anyone to endorse fluoridation in a series of Delta Dental YouTube videos. I’ll
bet he makes way more money in his new job.

b) Dentist
William Mass was equally impotent when asked to defend fluoridation before a
county legislature in his new job as Fluoridation Consultant to the billion-dollar
Pew Foundation’s Dental Policy group. Under his guidance, Pew fluoridation
initiatives in Portland, Oregon and Wichita, Kansas failed when voters rejected
fluoridation 60% to 40% despite the vast amount of money spent trying to
convince them to swallow the fluoride.

Dentists Doing Very Well, Thank You,
Despite Fluoridation

Fluoridation
hasn’t hurt dentistry’s bottom line at all. In fact, dentistry is big business
today despite 7 decades of water fluoridation and a glut of fluoridated dental products.Americans spent about $108
billion on dentists in 2011,
an inflation-adjusted increase from $64 billion in 1996, according to the General
Accounting Office. But a dental crisis still exists.

Since
fluoridation doesn’t reduce tooth decay, whose best interests are served by
protecting fluoride’s image?

Fluoridation
has created a lucrative new market for cosmetic dentistry. Fluoride-overdose
symptoms, dental fluorosis (discolored teeth) has increased in incidence and
severity over the years.WebMD writes,
“Although fluorosis is not a disease, its effects can by psychologically
distressing and difficult to treat. Parental vigilance can play an important
role in preventing fluorosis.”

Sales of
fluoride varnish are soaring as organized dentistry lobbied legislators to
increase, require or allow their use among more practitioners – even though the
varnish contains a hugely toxic 22,600 parts per million fluoride and has never
been FDA approved for cavity reduction or safety tested.http://www.cda.org/Portals/0/pdfs/ab667_topical_fluoride_faq.pdf

Money is Power

Why
does the ADA need so much money?Money is power in American politics. The ADA’s Political Action
Committee is considered a Heavy Hitter
by the Center
for Responsive Politics. It seems that organized dentistry lobbies mostly
for laws that benefit their member dentists. Some legislation masquerades as a
public benefit. Fluoridation wears such a mask.

The
New York State Dental Association brags about its legislative victories on its website

The
New York Times reported about the NY Dental Association’s political clout
and sleazy politicking, in 2008.

A
National Journal article (1/20/2014) explains how organized dentistry
heavily funds two dentists (Reps Mike Simpson and Paul Gosar) in the US House of
Representatives. In 2012, The
Wall Street reported that Simpson helped stall funding for a piece of the
new health care law which the dental lobby opposed. In 2013, the American Dental
Association listed two "action alerts" on its website, urging its members to
write in support of legislation. Both bills were authored by Gosar, and Simpson
was among the earliest cosponsors of both.

Simpson co-authored a dental bill that included fluoridation in 2004 and earlier

Even
the ADA admits good dental health begins in the womb.
It’s important for pregnant women to receive sufficient amounts of
tooth-building nutrients, including
calcium, protein, phosphorous and vitamins A, C and D But dentists
are mostly focused on fluoride, a drug with adverse side effects, that is not
even essential for healthy teeth. American children are especially deficient in
Vitamin D and calcium, which is linked to
more tooth decay.

But
there’s no money in selling nutrients and healthy eating.

So
it’s not surprising that the U.S. is experiencing a tooth
decay epidemic along with a fluoride-overdose epidemic. Up to 60% of
adolescents have dental fluorosis. Yet 51% of them have tooth decay.

Nearly 9,500 new dental providers are
needed to meet the country’s current oral health

No
government agency has direct oversight of fluoridation. The CDC it’s not responsible for fluoridation
safety. The FDA regulates fluoride as a drug for topical application and
considers ingested fluoride such as fluoride supplements, an unapproved drug.
The EPA regulates fluoride in water supplies as a contaminant.Organized dentistry, fueled by corporate
cash, protects fluoride’s image and promotes fluoridation but not the American public.

So Why Fluoridation?

The
dental crisis America
faces today is because dentistry has become a luxury service that most
Americans can’t afford.80% of dentists
refuse to accept Medicaid patients, 130 million lack dental insurance.Many with dental insurance can’t afford
dentistry’s high out of pocket fees.The
answer is simple - legalize Dental Therapists in the US as
they have been for decades in other first world countries.They just need 2 or 3 years training to do
simple dentistry. They will go into mouths and areas dentists refuse to go. Studies
show they are highly effective and more affordable.

However,
organization dentistry, with its pockets full of corporate cash, lobby long and
hard to keep affordable dentistry an oxymoron in the US.Dentists lobby against dental therapists because,
some say, they infringe upon dentists lucrative monopoly.